"Right To Bear Arms"

The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man.

This is an absurd comparison. That courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to mean individuals have the right to gun ownership is in NO way analogous to providing a blueprint to commit murder. The only way your comparison works is if gun owners were specifically encouraged to go out and commit gun crimes along with their purchase of a firearm. [Frankly I find your characterization of the First Amendment case questionable as well, but that's an argument for another day.]

I find it troubling that every time a right is found to have adverse consequences, there is a push to ban the right altogether. We have, what, roughly 40,000 auto accident deaths a year in this country, but a proposal that would ban the use of automobiles would be laughed out of the room. There are a lot of unfortunate outcomes of having a system of guaranteed rights, but that, frankly, is the price we pay for them.

If we look at America's modern history -- at how it has supported political factions in other countries to overthrow their governments -- the business angle becomes even clearer.

This kind of paranoid anti-business military-industrial complex rant is not very original or valid for a number of reasons. The main reason is that you can use it to support any argument. Take, for example, abortion. One could make the argument that the constitutional right to choose to have an abortion is about business and money. No abortions means no money for abortion providers, ergo there is a strong financial interest in making abortions legal.

I'd grant you that, Flashy! I mean, it's not ONLY about money, it's also about getting across the message that America is a violent country, that its government creates the possibility for people to kill each-other as easily as possible.

I'd grant you that, Flashy! I mean, it's not ONLY about money, it's also about getting across the message that America is a violent country, that its government creates the possibility for people to kill each-other as easily as possible.

Well, I can't argue with that! But I'd hasten to add that America doesn't have a patent on the violence by a long shot. It's those crazy international soccer (excuse me, "football") fans that do.

[...] it's also about getting across the message that America is a violent country, that its government creates the possibility for people to kill each-other as easily as possible.

It's not about "getting across the message that" -- the government actually acts as a facilitator in the process of people killing each-other as quickly and "neatly" as possible. Using knives to kill it's not effective when people engage in killing sprees, for instance.

It's not about "getting across the message that" -- the government actually acts as a facilitator in the process of people killing each-other as quickly and "neatly" as possible. Using knives to kill it's not effective when people engage in killing sprees, for instance.

The same way the government "facilitates" thousands of deaths a year by allowing people to drive cars, or allows alcohol to be purchased by anyone over 21, or makes cigarettes legal, or makes it legal to consume food that is proven to lead to heart disease or obesity, or doesn't execute murderers and lets them back on the streets to kill again? When you use a loaded term like facilitator, it makes it sound like you mean accomplice, which makes me think you need to take the tinfoil hat off and back slowly away from it. Allowing individuals to own firearms is not the same as facilitating murder.

Also, why would you assume a gun ban would suddenly make people who would go on a killing spree resort to knives? They would still use guns; they would just be illegally obtained guns instead of legally obtained ones.

The same way the government "facilitates" thousands of deaths a year by allowing people to drive cars, or allows alcohol to be purchased by anyone over 21, or makes cigarettes legal, or makes it legal to consume food that is proven to lead to heart disease or obesity, or doesn't execute murderers and lets them back on the streets to kill again? When you use a loaded term like facilitator, it makes it sound like you mean accomplice, which makes me think you need to take the tinfoil hat off and back slowly away from it. Allowing individuals to own firearms is not the same as facilitating murder.

Also, why would you assume a gun ban would suddenly make people who would go on a killing spree resort to knives? They would still use guns; they would just be illegally obtained guns instead of legally obtained ones.

1. Allowing people to drive cars, allowing access to alcohol to 21+ yos, making cigarettes legal, making it legal to consume food proven to lead to heart disease or obesity causes harm and/or death much less effectively and slowly than making guns available in the manner they currently are. You are right, though, not executing murderers and letting them back on the streets to kill again is just as dangerous. 2. Illegally obtained guns are much harder to be obtained than legally obtained ones. It's all a question of availability.

IONLYKNOWY

What everybody seems to forget is that these killings sprees that happen are only a very small percentage of the actual amount of gun crime in America.

Most gun crimes are committed by criminals who obtain guns through illegal weapon sales.

You would have to be a pretty stupid criminal if you went and bought a gun and registered it in your name, then went and committed crimes with that same gun.

Criminals know that they will be caught if they do this, so they use someone elses gun.. most likely a gun that has been stolen.

Since guns are invented and exist.. there is no way to control it.. there will always be guns. If we outlaw guns then guess what automatically becomes the next most profitable illegal trades, you guessed it GUNS.

Drugs are smuggled now, and if guns become illegal to obtain, therefore making them hard to steal.. then illegal gun smuggling will shoot through the roof. No pun intended.

As long as there is a criminal wanting to buy a stolen gun, then there will be someone willing to smuggle and sale these guns.. Think about it.

And seeing how easy it is to cross the border illegally, due to almost zero border security.. guns would be smuggled just as easy or easier than drugs.

What everybody seems to forget is that these killings sprees that happen are only a very small percentage of the actual amount of gun crime in America.

Let's make sure that at least these killing sprees do not happen, then!

Quote

Since guns are invented and exist.. there is no way to control it.. there will always be guns. If we outlaw guns then guess what automatically becomes the next most profitable illegal trades, you guessed it GUNS.

Not really! Your "gun mentality" is twisting things to make it look like that! Why do you assume that people need so badly guns, in the first place? Why do you think people like guns just a little bit less than drugs?!

Quote

As long as there is a criminal wanting to buy a stolen gun, then there will be someone willing to smuggle and sale these guns.. Think about it.

Criminals are encouraged to use guns (legally or illegally obtained) when they live in a society that promotes violence and artificially creates constructs about the necessity of having guns sold legally.

The American ideal of sexuality appears to be rooted in the American ideal of masculinity. This ideal has created cowboys and Indians, good guys and bad guys, punks and studs, tough guys and softies, butch and faggot, black and white. It is an ideal so paralytically infantile.

Why does a nation persist in celebrating violence as an honorable expression of disapproval? Let's not trivialize a horrible tragedy by pretending we can't make sense of it. "Senseless" sounds like "without cause," and requires no action. After an appropriate interval of dismayed hand-wringing, we can go back to business as usual. What takes guts is to own up: This event made perfect sense. Children model the behavior of adults, on whatever scale is available to them. Ours are growing up in a nation whose most important, influential men -- from presidents to film heroes -- solve problems by killing people. It's utterly predictable that some boys who are desperate for admiration and influence will reach for guns and bombs.

It may be perfectly clear to you that Nazis, the Marines, "the Terminator" and the N.Y.P.D. all kill for different reasons. But as every parent knows, children are good at ignoring or seeing straight through the subtleties we spin. Here's what they see: Killing is an exalted tool for punishment and control. Americans who won't support it are ridiculed. Let's face it, though, most Americans believe bloodshed is necessary for preserving our way of life, even though this means we risk the occasional misfire -- the civilians strafed, the innocent man wrongly condemned to death row. We have taught our children in a thousand ways, sometimes with flag-waving and sometimes with a laugh track, that the bad guy deserves to die. But we forgot something. Any of our children may someday be, in someone's mind, the bad guy.

Through merchandising and manipulation, we bully vulnerable, uninformed children into believing guns are cool, violent movies are cool, hate-filled lyrics are cool, bloody video games are cool, and smashing, crippling confrontations in sports are maybe not cool but at least fun to watch. We call upon teens and preteens to grow up too soon, before they can perceive the line between fantasy and reality, and then we sob and wring our hands and wonder what went wrong when they cross the line. Society is the biggest bully of all, shielding by 1st and 2nd Amendments, the purveyors of violence who profit at the expense of the human dignity.